As I said, I'm not complaining about playing Kansas as it is about as favorable a matchup as we would get if we had finished 15 (although I probably would rather face Cincy).

But seriously, there is a reason all the minor conferences finish their tournaments early. And we should find a way to do it, Princeton exams (which are the reason we play our season so late) or no exams.

Hopefully seeds would be scrubbed after the game, but Harvard would add a Quad2 win with a victory today, which should change the picture dramatically. The winner today should end up with an RPI rank that is in the 100-110 range, which would be crazy for a 16-seed in a year when there have been so many upsets. Smells like a solid 15 either way.

It has been a challenging year for IL men's basketball as reflected in the 16 seed for the co-champ and IvyMadness winner. There are many reasons for the poor performance of the league this year, including injuries, but there are legitimate questions. From the outset of non-conference play this year, IL teams had performance issues both from a record and visual perspective. Hopefully, significant improvement will be realized next year and beyond -- time will tell.

The track record of #16 seeds is well established but perhaps, Coach Donahue will pull off a history making event or at least keep the game competitive with tough defense.

The goal of the league should be to at least produce #12 and #13 seeds which they have done in prior years. Let's see how far away that we are from a 2 bid league. Not sure if the introduction of IvyMadness will accelerate the process.

Mike, isn't there an inherent inconsistency or hurdle incurred due to the tournament? As I understood it, the narrative is that if the Ivy has a qualified at large team that doesn't win the tournament then we might get a second bid (at large). However, that presupposes a loss in the tournament, presumably to a lesser ranked squad. That loss can't possibly help in this anti mid-major selection process. Possibly worse, I would expect that a Sunday 'upset' would put the committee in the position of having to jettison a Power 5 team in favor of an Ivy squad that couldn't even beat a lower regarded Ivy squad in it's final game. Who really thinks the committee wants to do that, especially for an Ivy squad already guaranteed an NIT bid?

This pipe dream is internally inconsistent and, thus, our Folly.

Edited by HARVARDDADGRAD on 03-12-18 10:11 AM. Reason for edit: No reason given.

It's definitely not the direction I expected the league to go. To fall this far is a big argument against mine and others optimism.

But look at our All Ivy, not a senior on either team. The Ivy champ, Penn, was powered with its two best players being sophomores. This is usually a good sign (Cornell '08, Penn '05, Princeton '96, Penn '93) as to a champ improving its ranking/seeding. If Penn is beaten out, and there are certainly many reasons that could happen, one would think that's because someone overtook them as opposed to Penn falling back. I would expect that to mean at least two Top 100 teams, so seeding would be much improved.

Mike, isn't there an inherent inconsistency or hurdle incurred due to the tournament? As I understood it, the narrative is that if the Ivy has a qualified at large team that doesn't win the tournament then we might get a second bid (at large). However, that presupposes a loss in the tournament, presumably to a lesser ranked squad. That loss can't possibly help in this anti mid-major selection process. Possibly worse, I would expect that a Sunday 'upset' would put the committee in the position of having to jettison a Power 5 team in favor of an Ivy squad that couldn't even beat a lower regarded Ivy squad in it's final game. Who really thinks the committee wants to do that, especially for an Ivy squad already guaranteed an NIT bid?

This pipe dream is internally inconsistent and, thus, our Folly.

Do you not read anyone else? Even Mike? This is basically a prime reason he's flipped on the tournament's appropriateness.

Other than it was a great showcase for the League. I cannot deny that--having it on noon on Selection Sunday at the Palestra compared with the dreck that was the AAC tournament before a cavern of empty seats.

In terms of the Ivy ideal or promoting the selection of a 2nd team getting a bid, no.

I absolutely see where Mike has changed his position. My point is that 2 bid concept is hurt by the tournament, an internal inconsistency that always puzzled me. Mike had been more optimistic about the committee's willingness to use better metrics. I believe he flipped when he gave up on the bona fides of the committee.

Sure, more games can be fun, and if they were held in my town, in my home, and with my fans and friends I'd think it was the funnest thing ever. It's just as 'fun' at the top seed's location, or at a neutral site, unless you are from Penn.

I'm totally fine with moving the tournament to other places. There are pluses (fairness) and minuses (less people at neutral site, no 'magical Ivy gathering' at higher seed) to both situations. But watching on tv was fun this weekend as I learned due to some babysitting mishaps.

"not fan of the tournament" = "my team is a favorite to win the league and I'm afraid of getting screwed" or "I'm old school and am against change"

I get the "our best team may get beat in the conference tournament" argument but also think the "our best team at the end of the season may not be the one who wins the 14 game tournament" the Mike has made in the past is also valid.

I had been a tournament skeptic up until last year. I now get it. It's fun. It makes the season more meaningful for all teams / players / coaches. And I refuse to be an old man throwing old school objections against change.

I had been a tournament skeptic up until last year. I now get it. It's fun. It makes the season more meaningful for all teams / players / coaches. And I refuse to be an old man throwing old school objections against change.

The argument from "modernity" is stupid. Conference tournaments are old-hat anyway. Mike has the radical idea:

"The time has come for mids to stop playing into this and chasing the brass ring of an extra bid. Enough with the conference tourneys. Send the regular season champ. Even if the NCAA adds more objectively accurate metrics to the team sheets, it will just ignore them when it wants."